• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran: US will "suffer" if it leads strike on Syria

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Iran: U.S. will 'definitely suffer' if it leads strike on Syria - CNN.com

Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Thursday the United States -- which, in addition to being one of his country's chief adversaries, has led the push to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government over chemical weapons -- has no right to make "humanitarian claims (given) their track record" in Iraq, Afghanistan and at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Honestly, I am surprised we have not heard more arguments like the one above. The U.S has no standing on humanitarian issues when it comes to using force because we have lost our credibility. I do have to doubt the Iranian rhetoric that the United States will suffer if military actions occurs. We have heard it before from other countries, namely North Korea, and nothing ever comes of it. Either way it is an interesting statement and it is an interesting situation that President Obama has gotten the United States into.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,847
Reaction score
33,968
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If the Iranian regime so much as farts in the wrong direction, it can instantly forget about becoming a nuclear power.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If the Iranian regime so much as farts in the wrong direction, it can instantly forget about becoming a nuclear power.
What if it's just in a general direction?
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iran: U.S. will 'definitely suffer' if it leads strike on Syria - CNN.com


Honestly, I am surprised we have not heard more arguments like the one above. The U.S has no standing on humanitarian issues when it comes to using force because we have lost our credibility. I do have to doubt the Iranian rhetoric that the United States will suffer if military actions occurs. We have heard it before from other countries, namely North Korea, and nothing ever comes of it. Either way it is an interesting statement and it is an interesting situation that President Obama has gotten the United States into.
Syria is Iran's pipeline to arm Hamas to fight Israel on Iran's behalf. Syria is the closest ally Iran has in the region, maybe the only real one.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,847
Reaction score
33,968
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If the Iranian regime so much as farts in the wrong direction, it can instantly forget about becoming a nuclear power.
I would agree with that, if Obama's record was different regarding the Middle East. Given the Administration's history, I just don't know.
 

DiAnna

Hooter Babe
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
46,324
Reaction score
24,870
Location
Northern California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I won't lie, I'm not comfortable with Obama leading the country during this tumultuous time (yeah... I voted for him last year; the alternative was worse.). If charisma alone could lead a country, we're all set. But it's not. I'm not saying he has done everything wrong; I'm just saying that his right versus wrong choice percentage is dismally low.

Obama has been by turns inept, incompetent, indecisive. His constant vacillation on what the US will do, when it will do it, how it will do it, then oops, let's back that up for a while and chat with congress, has not only given Syria a blueprint of our military game plan, it's also allowed Syria plenty of time to shift, move and hide its military assets.

As for Iran, they are watching a dithering president who changes his mind as often as mom changes a baby's diaper. If they don't feel emboldened at this point, I'd be stunned. They see a president that when pressed to the wall, blinks or simply moves the wall. They will take advantage of that, which will not bode well for the region or the world at large. I'd like to say I believed that if then Iranians tried to take a piss in our direction, Obama would turn them into eunuchs before they got it back in their pants...

But I honestly don't believe that to be the case. There will be much bluster and gnashing of teeth, Obama will indignantly tell the world exactly what we are going to do and when we are going to do it, but in the end... I doubt he will do anything of substance, which will continue to embolden our enemies.

I don't dislike the guy, but that's the trouble with "on the job training" in the most important job in the world. He wasn't ready for prime time, but a dazzling smile and a way with words gave people what they wanted, not what they needed. :shrug:
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
61,256
Reaction score
29,115
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Iran: U.S. will 'definitely suffer' if it leads strike on Syria - CNN.com




Honestly, I am surprised we have not heard more arguments like the one above. The U.S has no standing on humanitarian issues when it comes to using force because we have lost our credibility. I do have to doubt the Iranian rhetoric that the United States will suffer if military actions occurs. We have heard it before from other countries, namely North Korea, and nothing ever comes of it. Either way it is an interesting statement and it is an interesting situation that President Obama has gotten the United States into.
The president of Iran is much much more moderate. I know the religious nuts have more control but the people over there are wanting them pushed out for the most part. So this could possibly fabricate the split between the mullahs and the president that the people would pursue? dunno.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iran: U.S. will 'definitely suffer' if it leads strike on Syria - CNN.com




Honestly, I am surprised we have not heard more arguments like the one above. The U.S has no standing on humanitarian issues when it comes to using force because we have lost our credibility. I do have to doubt the Iranian rhetoric that the United States will suffer if military actions occurs. We have heard it before from other countries, namely North Korea, and nothing ever comes of it. Either way it is an interesting statement and it is an interesting situation that President Obama has gotten the United States into.

Great points there.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,222
Reaction score
14,436
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iran: U.S. will 'definitely suffer' if it leads strike on Syria - CNN.com




Honestly, I am surprised we have not heard more arguments like the one above. The U.S has no standing on humanitarian issues when it comes to using force because we have lost our credibility. I do have to doubt the Iranian rhetoric that the United States will suffer if military actions occurs. We have heard it before from other countries, namely North Korea, and nothing ever comes of it. Either way it is an interesting statement and it is an interesting situation that President Obama has gotten the United States into.
I don't think it's about humanitarian efforts in as much as it is about enforcing an international treaty not to use chemical weapons.
 

greengirl77

Banned
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
362
Reaction score
95
Location
Arlington, tx
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The president of Iran is much much more moderate. I know the religious nuts have more control but the people over there are wanting them pushed out for the most part. So this could possibly fabricate the split between the mullahs and the president that the people would pursue? dunno.
I sometimes wonder if we have the same problem in America with the religious nuts! Different discussion though. I think Iran has a point here, we have been sticking our finger in that mess for years and all we have to show for it is body bags and debt! Time to let them handle their own problems. I don't care if they kill each other I really don't care how to that extent. Just as long as they do not attack the US. Now if they do don't send troops turn that desert into glass.
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't think it's about humanitarian efforts in as much as it is about enforcing an international treaty not to use chemical weapons.
In that case there would be overwhelming international support and UN support for action.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,222
Reaction score
14,436
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,752
Reaction score
17,159
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
In that case there would be overwhelming international support and UN support for action.
International support is dependent upon individual states caring. UN support is dependent upon the Security Council being unwilling to veto an action. Neither of which you can depend on.
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How often does that happen?
the UN hasnt even "condemned" the actions to my knowledge. They always seem to find time for that. Our closest allies voted against intervention too, the only country we have friendly relations with that has support for it is France (who will probably surrender half way through :p)
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
International support is dependent upon individual states caring. UN support is dependent upon the Security Council being unwilling to veto an action. Neither of which you can depend on.
Fair enough on both points, i'll say again though, the UN seems to "condemn" a lot of things, and most countries have an opinion on something. I do agree though that they are not both always reliable.
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
61,256
Reaction score
29,115
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I sometimes wonder if we have the same problem in America with the religious nuts! Different discussion though. I think Iran has a point here, we have been sticking our finger in that mess for years and all we have to show for it is body bags and debt! Time to let them handle their own problems. I don't care if they kill each other I really don't care how to that extent. Just as long as they do not attack the US. Now if they do don't send troops turn that desert into glass.
Well I'm not for conducting nor allowing a genocide but I am for an isolationist foreign policy well beyond what we have now. Wayyy beyond.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well I'm not for conducting nor allowing a genocide but I am for an isolationist foreign policy well beyond what we have now. Wayyy beyond.
Yes, I agree.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Obama has been by turns inept, incompetent, indecisive. His constant vacillation on what the US will do, when it will do it, how it will do it, then oops, let's back that up for a while and chat with congress, has not only given Syria a blueprint of our military game plan, it's also allowed Syria plenty of time to shift, move and hide its military assets.
Our military game plan is to drop bombs on them from the sky, and arm and support one faction against the other. Just like the last dozen or so civil wars we've intervened in. What's to give away?

As for Iran, they are watching a dithering president who changes his mind as often as mom changes a baby's diaper. If they don't feel emboldened at this point, I'd be stunned. They see a president that when pressed to the wall, blinks or simply moves the wall. They will take advantage of that, which will not bode well for the region or the world at large. I'd like to say I believed that if then Iranians tried to take a piss in our direction, Obama would turn them into eunuchs before they got it back in their pants...

But I honestly don't believe that to be the case. There will be much bluster and gnashing of teeth, Obama will indignantly tell the world exactly what we are going to do and when we are going to do it, but in the end... I doubt he will do anything of substance, which will continue to embolden our enemies.
What a weird sentiment. What exactly is it you think Iran is emboldened to do? Obtain nuclear technology? They're doing that already. Make moves against Israel? Fund terrorist organizations? Impose Islamic law on their people and oppress women, murder gays, and execute anyone who wants to stop being Muslim? They're already doing all of that. Maybe Iran's leaders don't spend all day thinking about what the United States may or may not do. Maybe if Iran "pissed on us" (whatever that actually means), then the American people would demand a war. We demanded one in Afghanistan, though we certainly didn't demand the one we ended up getting.

All this paranoia over Iran gets us nowhere. Just like our paranoia over Iraq got us nowhere. Our war mongering only made things worse. We probably will suffer if we attack Syria. We'll keep creating men like Bin Laden. We'll keep putting dictators in power and then tearing them down. We'll help the religious fundamentalists kill the communists and then help the rebels kill the fundamentalists and then we'll help someone else kill the rebels. We keep arming violent people and then acting surprised when they do violent things. We're perpetuating violence and instability.
 

aberrant85

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
594
Reaction score
209
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Honestly, I am surprised we have not heard more arguments like the one above. The U.S has no standing on humanitarian issues when it comes to using force because we have lost our credibility. I do have to doubt the Iranian rhetoric that the United States will suffer if military actions occurs. We have heard it before from other countries, namely North Korea, and nothing ever comes of it. Either way it is an interesting statement and it is an interesting situation that President Obama has gotten the United States into.
I don't actually think you have credibility or don't have credibility. You earn credibility and you lose credibility. As for the US, I feel we've lost credibility on Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. That's why I think we must restore credibility with intelligent responses to crises in the world like Syria. It's an ongoing process. If at the end of the day we've made more good choices than bad then I would feel good.

That being said, Iran has reasons to be angry with the West. The US and UK overthrew a democratic government and replaced it with the Shaw. The west stood by and did nothing when Iraq used chemical weapons against them. When Iran extended their hand to the US after 9/11 Bush labeled them part of the "Axis of Evil."

So, we have to think a long game here on how we deal with Iran.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,997
Reaction score
21,560
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't think it's about humanitarian efforts in as much as it is about enforcing an international treaty not to use chemical weapons.
There are also International rules against genocide and that hasn't ever motivated USA military action.
 

SBu

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
636
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I won't lie, I'm not comfortable with Obama leading the country during this tumultuous time (yeah... I voted for him last year; the alternative was worse.). If charisma alone could lead a country, we're all set. But it's not. I'm not saying he has done everything wrong; I'm just saying that his right versus wrong choice percentage is dismally low.

Obama has been by turns inept, incompetent, indecisive. His constant vacillation on what the US will do, when it will do it, how it will do it, then oops, let's back that up for a while and chat with congress, has not only given Syria a blueprint of our military game plan, it's also allowed Syria plenty of time to shift, move and hide its military assets.

As for Iran, they are watching a dithering president who changes his mind as often as mom changes a baby's diaper. If they don't feel emboldened at this point, I'd be stunned. They see a president that when pressed to the wall, blinks or simply moves the wall. They will take advantage of that, which will not bode well for the region or the world at large. I'd like to say I believed that if then Iranians tried to take a piss in our direction, Obama would turn them into eunuchs before they got it back in their pants...

But I honestly don't believe that to be the case. There will be much bluster and gnashing of teeth, Obama will indignantly tell the world exactly what we are going to do and when we are going to do it, but in the end... I doubt he will do anything of substance, which will continue to embolden our enemies.

I don't dislike the guy, but that's the trouble with "on the job training" in the most important job in the world. He wasn't ready for prime time, but a dazzling smile and a way with words gave people what they wanted, not what they needed. :shrug:
Couldn't agree more. He's a masterful politician and his political games run circles around others in our PC gentile society...play those games against hardened thugs on the international level playing for keeps...not so much. Well said.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,222
Reaction score
14,436
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are also International rules against genocide and that hasn't ever motivated USA military action.
The US was motivated to intervene in the genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia through NATO. Clinton regretted not intervening in Rwanda genocide.

I wonder why NATO isn't more involved in Syria?
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If the Iranian regime so much as farts in the wrong direction, it can instantly forget about becoming a nuclear power.
I read recently that Israel has 400 strategic nuclear weapons and neutron bombs. I'm thinking if Iran makes the mistake of bombing Tel Aviv that they might have to instantly forget about even having citizens and a government.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Clinton regretted not intervening in Rwanda genocide.
It's easy for him to act regretful as he professes to be a statesman decades after letting it happen. Coulda, shoulda, woulda.
 
Top Bottom